So...guess I'm the new guy

[Reforged]

You're an idiot.

There's a whole world of professional and academic resources out there published by the leaders in their field that acknowledge that scientific research is sitting on assumptions. Unproven, unprovable assumptions that are taken on faith and instead of acknowledging it, your desperate, cloying dependence on science as your "God" programs you, like a little puggle who gets excited when mama gets home from her librarian job, to fixate on that and only that.

It's such common sense that even OTHER atheists on OTHER forums are discussing this issue. College textbooks point to the issue. Logical Positivism of Ayer and Carnap's day have been thoroughly shown to be false.

And still you don't wanna let go to your 1950s notions of science and "the world of tomorrow!!!"?

Listen, Hoodie McGee, I'll make it simple for you:

a) Science depends heavily on the truth of mathematical and logical propositions.
b) The scientific method cannot "prove" a single mathematical or logical proposition.
c) Mathematical/logical propositions can be "proven" within their respective fields.
d) However, even the fields of mathematics and logic themselves
cannot be assessed by science.
c) Therefore the scientific method must assume the validity of mathematical and logical propositions without formal evidence for their validity.

I asked for examples and evidence of your statement. Instead you accuse me of saying all intellectual pursuits are scientific which to anyone who can read it is obvious I did not.

Then you insult me because... why exactly? Because I don't agree science makes metaphysical assumptions? Thats your claim we're talking about here. Not if science refines its research methods or whether it depends on mathematics or logical propositions. It has very little to do with what you claimed and I haven't even raised those points.

No, what I have contested is that science makes metaphysical assumptions and I will not have you sidetracking that query. That is what you stated and you have yet to prove that statement true.
If you are not capable of doing so and must continue utilizing Bill O'Reilly tactics that rely on mud slinging then don't even bother replying. I'm far too used to that kind of intellectual cowardice from outspoken theists and to be honest it bores me.